Tag: Jim Stanford

  • The Wages Crisis Revisited

    The Wages Crisis Revisited

    by Andrew Stewart, Jim Stanford and Tess Hardy

    A comprehensive review of Australian wage trends indicates that wage growth is likely to remain stuck at historically weak levels despite the dramatic disruptions experienced by the Australian labour market through the COVID-19 pandemic. The report finds that targeted policies to deliberately lift wages are needed to break free of the low-wage trajectory that has become locked in over the past nine years.

    The report, The Wages Crisis: Revisited, authored by three of Australia’s leading labour policy experts: Professor Andrew Stewart from Adelaide Law School, Dr Jim Stanford from the Centre for Future Work, and Associate Professor Tess Hardy from Melbourne Law School, updates analysis and recommendations from their 2018 edited book, The Wages Crisis in Australia.

    The report shows that annual nominal wage growth recovered after initial lockdowns during the pandemic – but rebounded only to the same slow pace (just above 2% per year) recorded for several years prior to COVID. Unprecedented fluctuations in employment and labour supply, including a significant decline in the official unemployment rate, do not seem to have altered wage growth, which is still tracking at the slowest sustained pace in post-war history.

    The research found little correlation between the lasting slowdown in wage growth after 2013, and changes in supply-and-demand balances in the labour market. Traditional market forces did not cause the wages crisis, and market forces are unlikely to be able to fix it – even with a relatively low unemployment rate.

    Instead, the authors identified nine policy and institutional factors which were more important in explaining the deceleration of wages, including: the erosion of collective bargaining coverage; inadequate minimum wages; pay restraint imposed on public sector workers; and widespread wage theft.

    The problem of restrained compensation in public and human services reaches further than just the pay caps imposed directly on public servants. Wages in publicly funded services (like aged care, the NDIS, and early child education) are also held back by inadequate funding and weak labour standards in those programs. The report makes special mention of the need to improve wages in aged care, in the wake of the recent Royal Commission’s finding that wages in the sector must be improved as a top priority in improving care standards and attracting the new workers the sector needs.

    The authors suggest that nominal wages should grow faster than 4% per year in coming years, to restore healthy relationships with productivity growth, inflation, and national income distribution. But a resuscitation of wage growth will not occur without proactive wage-boosting policies.

    The authors list five broad measures to quickly support wage growth. One is a proposal for a new statutory definition of employment. This would prevent businesses from drafting contracts that present workers as being self-employed, even if in reality they have no business of their own. The authors predict that such arrangements will become far more widespread, including in the growing gig economy, in the wake of two recent decisions by the High Court.



    Full report

    Share

  • We (still) need to talk about insecure work

    Originally published in The New Daily on April 18, 2022

    Business groups and conservative media are happy to discuss insecure work as if it is nothing new – stable and part of a healthy economy that provides workers with independence. But this is not the case, with insecure forms of work – casual, gigs, temporary work and short-term contracts – taking up a growing share of jobs in Australia.

    Taking this perspective to task in a piece for The New Daily, Jim Stanford and Mark Dean discuss how a much broader range of forms of insecure work face many workers in Australia today, with the issue not getting any better. This is not even a trend created by unavoidable conditions created by the pandemic; it has rather been a deliberate outcome of the federal government’s labour market policies. Simply pretending it isn’t an issue won’t make it go away; nor will it provide us with sustainable solutions to the precarious situation that will keep facing more and more workers until the problem of insecure work is adequately addressed


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • Budget Analysis 2022-23

    Budget Analysis 2022-23

    A Budget to Get to the May Election – But No Further

    The Commonwealth Government has tabled its budget for the 2022-23 financial year. As the nation emerges from two years of lockdowns and border closures, with less than two months until a federal election, this budget is focused on getting the government re-elected – rather than addressing the challenges of public health, stagnant wages, and sustainability facing Australia.

    This failure is all the more regrettable given the enormous discretionary fiscal resources which the government has at its disposal: the budget projects $133 billion in extra tax revenues over the next five years, compared to its MYEFO projections just three months ago, thanks to strong economic growth and rising nominal GDP. But instead of ploughing those revenues into reforming human services (like health, aged care, early child education, or disability services), undertaking a genuine policy to revitalise domestic manufacturing, or accelerating the energy transition, the government has prioritised one-time cash handouts to entice voters in the upcoming election.

    In this comprehensive budget overview, the Centre for Future Work’s team of economists unpacks the budget, considers its effects, and suggests alternatives.

    Our report reviews all aspects of the budget’s impacts on work and workers, including: wages, employment forecasts, vocational education and higher education, women workers and caring labour, labour standards enforcement, and manufacturing and energy jobs.

    Please also check out these rapid-response budget commentaries from two of our economists:

    Six graphs that reveal the sugar-hit election strategy,” by Policy Director Greg Jericho in the Guardian Australia.

    Budget billions wasted as real wages go backwards,” by Senior Economist Alison Pennington in The New Daily.



    Full report

    Share

  • Sustainable Industrial Jobs in the Hunter

    Sustainable Industrial Jobs in the Hunter

    Aluminium Manufacturing and Australia’s Energy Advantage
    by Jim Stanford and Alia Armistead

    New research from the Centre for Future Work shows that the rapid transformation of Australia’s aluminium facilities to sustainable sources of electricity would spark substantial economic benefits: for the aluminium industry, its supply chain, and for the burgeoning renewable energy sector (which would achieve greater critical mass from major new power supply contracts).

    The report, by Jim Stanford (the Centre’s Director) and Alia Armistead, looks in detail at the Tomago aluminium smelter in the Hunter region of NSW. It is Australia’s largest smelter, and is currently powered through electricity mostly sourced from coal-fired generation. The facility has pledged to move to renewable power sources by 2030 – and the new report confirms that this would underpin long-term industrial and economic benefits felt in all parts of the country.

    The report reviews the worrisome deindustrailisation of Australia’s foothold in the global aluminium industry. Australia’s exports of raw bauxite have grown rapidly, but value-added aluminium manufacturing (including smelting) has declined. This undermines employment, exports, and spin-off jobs.

    The study also reports results of macroeconomic simulations of the overall impacts of the Tomago facility on the national economy (including employment, incomes, GDP, and government revenue). These effects, because of the economic linkages between the smelter, its supply chain, and the consumer goods and services industries which depend on its continued existence, are very large.  Our results indicate the Tomago facility ultimately supports:

    • Over $1.2 billion in national GDP per year, with production benefits experienced in all states (70% in NSW).
    • Household disposable incomes of almost $500 million.
    • Direct and indirect employment of over 6000 jobs: in the smelter, in its various suppliers, and in downstream consumer industries.
    • Incremental government revenues worth $465 million per year: two-thirds of which is captured by the Commonwealth, and $120 million by the NSW state government.

    The study makes several recommendations for supporting Tomago’s transition to renewable energy, and enhancing Australia’s value-added aluminium presence. These include:

    • A clear and sustained commitment to rapid roll-out of renewable energy sources: Government should assist and accelerate Tomago’s transition to renewable power with clear, powerful measures to support expanded renewable energy developments, appropriate capacities (including batteries and pumped hydro) for backing up variable renewable power supplies, and fiscal measures that acknowledge the contribution Tomago could make (through the scale of its renewable energy purchases, as well as its potential role in demand-response measures that stabilise the regional electricity grid) to support NSW’s transition to renewable energy.
    • Full-cycle financial support and public equity: Our simulations confirm a large fiscal payback to state and Commonwealth governments arising from the operation of the Tomago smelter, its supply chain, and the downstream consumer industries which depend on its continued operation. This gives both levels of government a major fiscal stake in Tomago’s continuing operation. For that reason, in addition to supporting the roll-out of renewable energy, both governments should negotiate other forms of fiscal support for future capital improvements (including those tied to developments of renewable energy supply for the smelter).
    • Leveraging public infrastructure and procurement: Considerable demand for aluminium products will be forthcoming in future years as a result of the unprecedented investments being made by governments at all levels in new physical infrastructure: ranging from transportation to utilities to public buildings. The business case for continued aluminium manufacturing in Australia can be incrementally strengthened with pro-active efforts on the part of government to ensure that these investments (which are ultimately paid for by Australian taxpayers) embody maximum Australian-made content in all building materials and inputs, including aluminium.
    • A value-added trade policy: Australia’s laissez faire approach to international trade has concentrated Australia’s exports in the extraction and export of unprocessed or barely processed non-renewable resources; this has been coincident with a severe decline in domestic manufacturing and value-added activity, and a precarious dependence on imports to meet most domestic manufacturing needs. A rethinking of Australian trade policy could help reverse this damaging deindustrialisation. This must include active interventions to limit the inflow (often at prices below cost of production) of aluminium products from other countries which are not making reciprocal purchases of value-added merchandise from us. Trade policy should actively discourage exports of unprocessed bauxite, and instead require at least preliminary processing (and better yet, smelting) of Australian bauxite in Australian facilities.



    Full report

    Share

  • Power, Not Just Supply and Demand, Vital to Future Wage Growth

    Originally published in The Conversation on February 9, 2022

    Australia’s unemployment rate declined to 4.2% in December, and it could fall further (below 4%) in the coming year, barring further waves of COVID or other global shocks. This has some forecasters predicting a quick acceleration in wage growth — which has been stuck for almost a decade now at the slowest pace in Australia’s postwar history.

    Will a low unemployment rate be sufficient to solve the crisis in Australian wages? In this article published in The Conversation, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford argues that the historic restructuring of Australia’s labour market institutions over the last half-century (since the last time unemployment was below 4%) will continue to undermine wages, despite apparently tight labour markets.

    This table compares regulatory and institutional parameters today, compared to fifty years ago. Across multiple dimensions (including the minimum wage, the Awards system, unions and collective bargaining, and job security), workers have lost the bargaining power they need to win higher wages. Hence labour costs remain suppressed, and business profits hit records, even as unemployment declines.

    Labour Institutions Then and NowPlease see Jim’s full article, “Why there’s no magic jobless rate to increase Australians’ wages,” at The Conversation.


    You might also like

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs

    by Charlie Joyce

    Dutton’s nuclear push will cost renewable jobs As Australia’s federal election campaign has finally begun, opposition leader Peter Dutton’s proposal to spend hundreds of billions in public money to build seven nuclear power plants across the country has been carefully scrutinized. The technological unfeasibility, staggering cost, and scant detail of the Coalition’s nuclear proposal have

  • Of 3’s, and Other Important Labour Market Numbers

    Of 3’s, and Other Important Labour Market Numbers

    by Jim Stanford

    Will an unemployment rate with a 3 in front it, ensure that we also get wage growth with a 3 in front of it? Don’t count on it.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison set tongues wagging this week with a confident pledge that Australia’s unemployment rate could have “a 3 in front of it” this year. It’s a theme that will loom large in his campaign for reelection later this year.

    In this commentary, Centre for Future Work Director Jim Stanford considers whether a low unemployment rate is an accurate indicator of the state of the labour market — and whether, even if achieved, it would reignite wage growth and solve other problems holding back Australia’s labour market.

    The unemployment rate was 4.2% in December, so Mr Morrison’s prediction may not be as brave as might seem: it would only take a .3-point drop to achieve that magical ‘3’. The official unemployment rate often bounces by more than that (in either direction) in any given month, purely due to measurement errors or shifts in recorded labour force participation. So his prediction will likely come true. But is it the economic triumph that he and his political allies will claim?

    A lower unemployment rate is obviously better than a higher unemployment rate. But the unemployment rate itself has lost much of its value as an indicator of the state of the labour market. There are large pools of unutilised and underutilised labour in our economy that are not captured by the official unemployment measure.

    Equally important, assumptions that a historically low unemployment rate will automatically correct many of the labour market problems that Australia has experienced in recent years are misplaced. Problems like wage stagnation, falling real wages, income inequality and poverty (even among employed people), and the economic exclusion of sectors of society (such as indigenous and immigrant communities, and people with disability) all require more concerted and targeted actions to fix.

    Please see Jim’s full commentary: Of 3’s, and Other Important Labour Market Numbers.


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • Centre for Future Work Announces Two Senior Appointments

    Centre for Future Work Announces Two Senior Appointments

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    The Centre for Future Work at the Australia Institute is pleased to announce the appointment of two senior staff to its team of labour policy researchers.

    Greg Jericho will join the Centre on 1 February as Policy Director: Labour Market and Fiscal. Greg is an economist and well-known columnist for The Guardian in Australia; he currently teaches at the University of Canberra. He will continue writing his Guardian column, while overseeing new research projects for the Centre on issues of employment, wages, insecure work, and related topics.

    Dr Fiona Macdonald will join the Centre on 1 March as Policy Director: Industrial and Social. Fiona is presently Vice-Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow at the School of Management, RMIT University, and an internationally recognised expert on caring labour, gender and work, and industrial relations policy. She has published extensively on the Awards system, working conditions and compensation in human and caring services, and violence at workplaces. Fiona will oversee new research at the Centre on industrial relations reform, social policy, and caring labour.

    The two Policy Directors join the Centre’s existing research team, which includes: Economist and Director Jim Stanford; Senior Economist Alison Pennington; Economist Dan Nahum; and Mark Dean, Distinguished Research Fellow at the Carmichael Centre.

    “This is a critical moment in the history of work and industrial relations in Australia,” said Dr Stanford, the Centre’s Director. “The addition of Greg Jericho and Fiona Macdonald to our team will greatly enhance our capacity to investigate the threats facing work and workers, and to develop progressive policy responses that could achieve a better future of work.”

    “I am very excited to join the Centre for Future Work,” said Jericho. “At such a crucial moment, being able to push the policy debate in the interests of fairness for workers is of utmost importance. I look forward to working with the great team at the Centre and the Australia Institute to continue producing quality research that leads the political and policy debates.”

    “As a long-time admirer of the Centre, I am thrilled to be joining its research team,” said Dr. Macdonald. “I look forward to contributing to the Centre’s important work, including in the vital areas of the care economy and gender equality. Work is changing rapidly, and the Centre’s research empowers those working for a fairer, more equal labour market.”

    Greg Jericho will work out of the Australia Institute’s central office in Canberra. Fiona Macdonald will be based in Melbourne.

    Greg Jericho can be followed on Twitter at @GrogsGamut. Fiona Macdonald can be followed at @DrFionaMac.


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

    Carmichael Centre Announces Appointment of Prof. David Peetz as Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow

    by Jim Stanford

    The Carmichael Centre at the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work is proud to announce the appointment of Prof. David Peetz, one of Australia’s most outstanding labour policy experts, as the new Laurie Carmichael Distinguished Research Fellow. Prof. Emeritus Peetz has recently retired from a long career at Griffith University, where he served as Professor

  • Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: Labour Market Implications of Australia’s Failed COVID Strategy

    Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory: Labour Market Implications of Australia’s Failed COVID Strategy

    by Jim Stanford

    Share

    As COVID and recession gripped the world, through 2020 and most of 2021 Australia recorded one of the best outcomes: lower infection, fewer deaths, and a faster, stronger economic recovery. That seeming victory has been squandered, however by the appalling and infuriating events of recent weeks. Purportedly in the name of ‘protecting the economy’, key political leaders (led by the Commonwealth and NSW governments) threw the doors open to the virus at exactly the wrong time: just as the super-infectious Omicron variant was taking hold.

    The resulting surge in infections has been among the worst in the industrialised world (worse than the U.S. now, as shown in the following graph from Our World in Data). The implications of this massive outbreak for work, workers, production, and the economy have been as predictable as they are devastating. One-third or more of workers in the most-affected regions cannot attend work: because they contracted COVID, were exposed to it, or must care for others (like children barred from child care and soon, possibly, schools).

    Our Centre for Future Work team has been active in highlighting the risks of ‘letting it rip’, analysing the failures of isolation and income support programs, and reminding everyone that keeping workers healthy must be the first priority in keeping the economy healthy. Here is a selection of our recent interventions:

    New COVID Cases per Million (7-day rolling)

    • Our Director Jim Stanford reminded policy-makers in this commentary in The Conversation that human labour is the critical input to production at all stages of value-added and supply chains, and if policy-makers acknowledged the centrality of work to the economy they would not have made such destructive choices. The article was reposted by the ABC, the Sydney Morning Herald, and other platforms, and viewed over a half-million times.
    • Senior Economist Alison Pennington has exposed the flaws in government isolation and testing systems. For example, she highlighted the perverse incentives created by the NSW government’s punitive $1000 fine for failing to register a positive RAT test — never mind the governments’ failures to make tests available, and support workers (with necessary income benefits) to isolate. Her analysis was shared thousands of times, and featured in multiple news coverage (including News.com, The New Daily, and Yahoo Finance) of the flawed NSW policy.
    • Alison further detailed the flaws in changes to the Commonwealth government’s isolating support payments, in this commentary in The New Daily. By punitively excluding hundreds of thousands from isolation benefits, the policy will accelerate contagion and make supply chain problems even worse down the road.
    • Our experts have been featured in numerous other reports on the supply chain problems arising from the Omicron surge, including these reports on Channel 10, Today, The Age, ABC Online, and The Guardian.
    • Our Economist Dan Nahum linked the surge in Omicron contagion to the spread of insecure work arrangements in Australian workplaces. And the Centre’s previous work on how COVID has accentuated the dominance of casual and insecure work in Australia’s labour market shows that without urgent action to improve job quality, the labour market will be even more vulnerable to the inevitable future disruptions from this continuing crisis.

    Our team of experts will continue monitoring the dangerous labour market developments arising from Omicron, and flawed government responses to it. Please watch our site and follow our Twitter feed for regular updates.


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • Healthy humans drive the economy: we’re now witnessing one of the worst public policy failures in Australia’s history

    Originally published in The Conversation on January 12, 2022

    Australians are getting a stark reminder about how value is actually created in an economy, and how supply chains truly work.

    Ask chief executives where value comes from and they will credit their own smart decisions that inflate shareholder wealth. Ask logistics experts how supply chains work and they will wax eloquent about ports, terminals and trucks. Politicians, meanwhile, highlight nebulous intangibles like “investor confidence” – enhanced, presumably, by their own steady hands on the tiller.

    The reality of value-added production and supply is much more human than all of this. It is people who are the driving force behind production, distribution and supply.

    Labour – human beings getting out of bed and going to work, using their brains and brawn to produce actual goods and services – is the only thing that adds value to the “free gifts” we harvest from nature. It’s the only thing that puts food on supermarket shelves, cares for sick people and teaches our children.

    Even the technology used to enhance workers’ productivity – or sometimes even replace them – is ultimately the culmination of other human beings doing their jobs. The glorious complexity of the whole economy boils down to human beings, using raw materials extracted and tools built by other human beings, working to produce goods and services.

    A narrow, distorted economic lens

    The economy doesn’t work if people can’t work. So the first economic priority during a pandemic must be to keep people healthy enough to keep working, producing, delivering and buying.

    That some political and business leaders have, from the outset of COVID-19, consistently downplayed the economic costs of mass illness, reflects a narrow, distorted economic lens. We’re now seeing the result – one of the worst public policy failures in Australia’s history.

    The Omicron variant is tearing through Australia’s workforce, from health care and child care, to agriculture and manufacturing, to transportation and logistics, to emergency services.

    The result is an unprecedented, and preventable, economic catastrophe. This catastrophe was visited upon us by leaders – NSW Premier Dom Perrotet and Prime Minister Scott Morrison in particular – on the grounds they were protecting the economy. Like a Mafia kingpin extorting money, this is the kind of “protection” that can kill you.

    NSW Premier Dominic Perrottet’s decision to relax COVID-19 restrictions in December has turned into both a health and economic disaster. Bianca De Marchi/AAP

    Effect as bad as lockdowns

    On a typical day in normal times, between 3% and 4% of employed Australians miss work due to their own illness. Multiple reports from NSW indicate up to half of workers are now absent due to COVID: because they contracted it, were exposed to it, or must care for someone (like children barred from child care) because of it. With infections still spreading, this will get worse in the days ahead.

    Staffing shortages have left hospitals in chaos, supermarket shelves empty, supply chains paralysed. ANZ Bank data, for example, shows economic activity in Sydney has fallen to a level lower than the worst lockdowns.

    Spending in Sydney and Melbourne now near lockdown conditions

    ANZ Research

    If relaxing health restrictions in December (as Omicron was already spreading) was motivated by a desire to boost the economy, this is an own-goal for the history books.

    Relaxing isolation rules

    Now the response to Omicron ravaging labour supply is to relax isolation requirements for workers who have contracted, or been exposed to, COVID-19.

    The first step was to shift the goalposts on “test, trace, isolate and quarantine” arrangements by redefining “close contact”.

    On December 29 the Prime Minister said it was important to move to a new definition “that enables Australia to keep moving, for people to get on with their lives”. The next day National Cabinet approved a definition such that only individuals having spent at least four hours indoors with a COVID-infected person needed to isolate.

    Australians certainly want supply chains to keep moving. That won’t happen by simply pretending someone with three hours and 59 minutes of face-to-face indoor contact with Omicron is safe. Putting asymptomatic but exposed and potentially infected people back to work will only accelerate the spread.

    The second step has been to reduce the isolation period for those who do pass this tougher “close contact” test. At its December 30 meeting National Cabinet agreed to a standard isolation period of seven days (ten days in South Australia), down from 14 days.

    For “critical workers” in essential services including food logistics, the NSW and Queensland governments have gone even further, allowing employers to call them back to work so long as they are asymptomatic.

    Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory

    This follows a US precedent, despite scientific evidence indicating contagion commonly lasts longer than 5 days.

    Employers will use this change to pressure exposed and even sick workers to return to work, risking their own health, colleagues, customers, and inevitably spreading the virus further.

    Copying US COVID protocols only guarantees US-style infection rates. In fact, since 5 January, Australia’s seven-day rolling average infections per million now exceed that of the US.

    Our Wold in Data, CC BY

    From one of the best COVID responses in the world to one of the worst, Australia has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

    It’s not too late to limit the carnage

    The idea that health considerations had to be balanced with economic interests was always a false dichotomy. A healthy economy requires healthy workers and healthy consumers.

    The Omicron surge has created an economic emergency that will be difficult to endure.

    But it’s not too late to limit further avoidable contagion. Infection prevention practices (including masks, capacity limits, prohibitions on group indoor activities, PPE and distancing in workplaces, and free and accessible rapid tests) must be restored and enforced.

    Income supports for workers who stay home must be restored. Staffing strategies need to emphasise steady, secure jobs, rather than outsourcing and gig arrangements which have facilitated contagion.

    Above all, our policy makers need to remember the economy is composed of human beings, and refocus their attention on keeping people healthy. Protecting people is the only thing that can protect the economy.


    You might also like

    Centre For Future Work to evolve into standalone entity

    The Centre for Future Work was established by the Australia Institute in 2016 to conduct and publish progressive economic research on work, employment, and labour markets. Supported by the Australian Union movement, the centre produced cutting edge research and led the national conversation on economic issues facing working people: including the future of jobs, wages

  • New International Research Exposes Australia’s Missed Wage-boosting Opportunities

    New International Research Exposes Australia’s Missed Wage-boosting Opportunities

    New research on international collective bargaining systems, released today in a special issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Labour and Industry, finds that Australia’s industrial relations system is rapidly losing its ability to support wages in the face of numerous challenges (now including the Omicron outbreak).

    On the heels of new data showing further erosion of Australia’s collective bargaining system, researchers and practitioners from five countries have identified best practices from other countries that could strengthen collective bargaining and lift wages.

    Key findings of the research include:

    • The Ardern government in New Zealand has implemented a new sector-wide bargaining system (called ‘Fair Pay Agreements’) that could be a model for similar changes in Australia. It would enhance workers’ ability to win more stable jobs and higher wages in highly fragmented industries (like security, cleaning or child care).
    • New Zealand-style reforms could also improve the effectiveness of Australia’s pay equity legislation. Recent changes in New Zealand’s pay equity system prove that wider scope for bargaining can address persistent gendered pay discrimination. One recent enterprise agreement in Australia (covering public sector workers in Victoria) has already applied that model here.
    • Nordic and continental European countries have used coordinated sectoral bargaining systems to enhance vocational training and technology adoption. Australia could learn from that experience to better integrate skills programs with secure job pathways.
    • In Germany, a combination of sector-wide bargaining over wages and other core compensation, combined with workplace-level consultations (under that country’s ‘works council’ system), produces employment outcomes that are both flexible and fair.

    The final published versions of all articles in the Special Issue are available through Labour and Industry, or through your local library. Links to the following articles are available free access for 3 months (ends March 2022):

    Introduction, by Alison Pennington and Jim Stanford

    Sector-wide bargaining: problems and prospects in the Australian case, by Tom Roberts

    Rebuilding worker power in Australia through multi-employer bargaining, by Tim Kennedy, Ben Redford, Renee Burns and Anthony Forsyth

    Bargaining for pay equity: an NZ-inspired approach to gender equality in Australia, by Alison Pennington and Megan Wenlock

    International approaches to solving the ‘free rider’ problem in industrial relations, by Jim Stanford

    Collective bargaining’s contribution to employment skills and transitions: lessons from the Nordic countries, by Andrew Scott

    The Ghent system of social insurance: a model for Australia?, by Russell Lansbury

    Industry 4.0 in Germany and Australia: digital choices, human responses, by Andrew Dettmer

    Unions and the evolution of trade and industry policy under the Ardern government, by Bill Rosenberg

    Comment from authors:

    “Australia’s workplace relations system is failing to address rising insecure work, record-low wages growth, and a persistent gender pay gap. Collective bargaining system retrenchment compounds risks in Australia’s uncoordinated, fragmented skills system. We’re failing to facilitate the millions of jobs pathways and transitions our economy needs now, and in the future,” said Alison Pennington, Senior Economist with the Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work.

    “The pandemic has deepened the structural drivers behind the gender pay gap in low-paid, insecure work. Australia has much to learn from the labour policy settings implemented in neighbouring New Zealand to meaningfully address the gender pay gap, including Fair Pay Agreements and pay equity bargaining.”

    “Australian workers need an effective system of collective bargaining that goes beyond the legal entity that directly employs them. This is a vital mechanism to ensure workers have greater control over the safety of their work, across sectors, industries, franchises, labour hire arrangements, supply chains – or however work is configured,” said Tim Kennedy, Secretary of the United Workers Union.

    “Australia is currently deprived of the skill formation benefits that arise from strong sectoral collective bargaining between social partners observed in Nordic nations. It’s exacerbating serious deficiencies in our skills training arrangements, evident in high rates of misalignment between jobs and skills. Australia can learn much from the Nordic countries’ superior economic and social policy outcomes that arise from well-integrated skills and collective bargaining systems,” said Andrew Scott, Professor of Politics and Policy at Deakin University and Convenor of The Australia Institute’s Nordic Policy Centre.

    Share